Research supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant

1. Behavioral Inhibition Across Context: Social Versus Non-social and Familiar Versus Unfamiliar Contexts Research supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant NIH R34MH083832-01 awarded to Kenneth H. Rubin and Andrea Chronis-Tuscano Jennifer M. Wang1; Maureen A. Wimsatt1; Kenneth H. Rubin1; Andrea Chronis-Tuscano1; Robert J. Coplan2; Kelly Ann O'Brien1; Lea R. Dougherty1 1University of Maryland, USA 2Carleton University, Canada

2. Behavioral Inhibition • Behavioral inhibition (BI): a temperamental disposition to react with anxiety and distress in the face of social and nonsocial novelty. • BI associated with maladjustment (e.g., anxiety and depression) across development. • Risk factor for later anxiety disorders • Particularly social anxiety disorder

3. Limitations of Past Research Little is known about how behaviorally inhibited children behave in bothunfamiliar and familiar social settings, especially over time. Very little is known about intraindividual differences in the behaviors of inhibited children in unfamiliar and familiar social settings across time.

4. Limitations of Past Research Shy and withdrawn children tend to befriend one another during middle childhood and early adolescence (e.g., Rubin, Wojslawowicz, Rose-Krasnor, Booth-LaForce, & Burgess, 2006) . Little is known about how young inhibited children behave in social situations with other similarly inhibited peers across unfamiliar and familiar social situations.

5. Present Study: • Examine the social and non-social behaviors of extremely inhibited young children over time. • Examine these behaviors in unfamiliar and familiar social settings. • Examine these behaviors in the presence and absence of other inhibited children in unfamiliar and familiar social settings.

6. Participants & Procedure • Sample • 10 preschoolers (3 boys; M age = 4.25 years) • Identified as extremely inhibited and anxious by both parents and teachers Participated as part of a larger intervention program for socially anxious and withdrawn young children • Procedure • Children visited the lab weekly to participate in a “social skills” intervention program for 8 weeks (Obrien et al., 2012). • At Weeks 1 & 2 (Time 1) and Weeks 7 & 8 (Time 2), children’s behaviors were coded by trained observers • a) free play at preschool with familiar peers • b) free play at the lab with other inhibited children.

7. Coding Scheme • Play Observation Scale (POS; Rubin, 2001) • Behaviors: Group Play, Anxious Behaviors, & Solitary Reticence • 15 minutes at each setting and time point • Kappa = .75- .90

8. Results:Behaviors in Familiar vs. Unfamiliar Settings • Table 1. Proportion of Observed Social Reticence in Lab vs. School across Time (* p < .05) • Time 1: • Children scored significantly higher on Social Reticence at the lab vs. at school. • Time 2: • This difference in Social Reticence between the different settings was not found at Time 2.

9. Results: Social Reticence in Lab vs. School

10. Results:Behaviors in Familiar vs. Unfamiliar Settings • Table 2. Proportion of Social Reticence in Lab vs. School across Time (* p < .05) • Time 1: • Children also scored significantly lower on Group Play at the lab vs. at school. • Time 2: • This difference in Group Play between the different settings was not found at Time 2.

11. Results: Group Play

12. Results:Behaviors across Time Table 3. Proportion of Social Reticence at Time 1 vs. Time 2 across Lab & School (* p < .05) • Social Reticence: • In the Lab, children scored significantly lower on Social Reticence at Time 2 compared with Time 1. • This difference between Time 1 and Time 2 was not found in the School.

13. Results: Social Reticence in Lab across T1 and T2

14. Results: Behaviors in Lab vs. School Table 4. Proportion of Group Play at Time 1 vs. Time 2 across Lab & School (* p < .05) • Group Play: • In the Lab, children scored significantly higheron Group Play at Time 2 compared with Time 1. • This difference between Time 1 and Time 2 was not found in the School.

15. Results: Social Reticence in Lab across T1 and T2

16. Results: Behaviors in Lab vs. School Table 5. Proportion of Anxious Behavior at Time 1 vs. Time 2 across Lab & School (* p < .05) • Anxious Behaviors: • In the Lab, children scored significantly lower on Anxious Behaviors at Time 2 compared with Time 1. • This difference between Time 1 and Time 2 was not found in the School.

17. Results: Anxious Behaviors in Lab across T1 and T2

18. Discussion: • Inhibited children are more inhibited and withdrawn in unfamiliar social situations • Inhibition decreases considerably as these social situations become more familiar. • Inhibited children might be less inhibited in the company of familiar peers who are also similarly inhibited.

19. Importance of considering different contexts • Familiarity of social others • Behavioral similarity of social others

20. Future Directions • Replication with bigger samples. • Combine observational measures with other measures (e.g., parent-reports; teacher-reports). • Consider treatment effects • Treatment might need to extend beyond the lab settings.

21. Thank You!  Research and presentation supported by National Institute of Health grant NIH R34MH083832-01to Kenneth H. Rubin and Andrea Chronis-Tuscano Questions & comments, please email wangjenn@umd.edu